Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have been here a long time, and I have never come to this floor for the purpose of opposing innocuous resolutions. In fact, I've voted for every piece of innocuous legislation and post office renaming in the last 15 years, as far as I can remember. And this is innocuous legislation.

First, it starts with a sense of Congress about our opinion as to what should or shouldn't be done. It has a sentence that purports to prevent the President from putting ground forces in Libya, but in fact just states that's our policy. It is certainly not designed to prohibit the President from doing so; it just says that it's our opinion that he shouldn't. And, by the way, in the Defense authorization bill, we have real legislation that already prohibits putting ground forces in Libya.

It then goes on to ask that a number of questions be answered. There are some who think, that's important. Those who think that the questions propounded in this resolution are actually going to get us useful information are insulting the faculty of the law schools of America, because both the Pentagon and the State Department have lawyers capable of writing long and meaningless answers to every question we propound. And as for getting documents, some of the documents demanded we already have, and as for the rest, those same lawyers will be writing long documents about executive privilege.

So we have here a document that at most is just questions for the Record that the chairwoman of our committee allows me to add at the end of so many hearings; hardly earthshaking, certainly innocuous.

But, okay, so it's innocuous. Or is it?

This is innocuous legislation that plays a particular role in avoiding the constitutional role of this Congress. It allows us to sidestep the War Powers Act. It gives cover to those who don't want to authorize, or refuse to authorize. It says we're an advisory body. We ask some questions so we can give good advice. We will give the President some advice. It is part of the trend of an aggrandizing executive and a derelict Congress, a Congress that almost is complicit in this slow process by which we are not legislators, we are not deciders; we inquire and we advise.

The Constitution is clear, but the War Powers Act is more clear: the President must ask for congressional authorization. Then we actually have to act, and that is tough. We have to review the proposals, and I believe our ranking member (Mr. Berman) would have one that would say, What are we going to authorize? Under what conditions? What demands will we make of our allies in Libya to perhaps turn over to us, or at least disassociate themselves from, the al Qaeda operatives in their midst? Are we going to limit the duration? Are we going to limit the scope? Are we going to impose limits on the total cost?

With this resolution, we can avoid all of those questions. We can avoid demanding a withdrawal. We can avoid limiting the authorization, and we can allow the President to continue to write the blank check that apparently he believes he has, and we can do it all while disassociating ourselves with anything unpopular that ever happens over the skies of Libya.

Now is not the time for us to shirk our responsibilities. Our responsibility is to act as a policy-making body.

I ask the gentleman for 1 more minute.

Now is the time for us to play the role that the War Powers Act provides, because this is not an immediate short-term emergency situation. It has gone on for much longer than 60 days. It should not go further.

Now, 208 Members of this Congress voted for my amendment yesterday to say that we should not expend funds in violation of the War Powers Act, and you were willing to vote for it even though I put it on a bill as to which it really didn't pertain. Thank you for those votes, but now please come back here and say, It's time to enforce the War Powers Act. It's time not to dodge the War Powers Act. It's time for our policy over the skies in Libya to be determined by the President and Congress, not the President advised by Congress.

Vote ``no'' on this resolution. Don't use it as a sidestep. Instead, go back to your constituents and say, You are for voting either for a withdrawal from Libya or for a full authorization or for a limited authorization.

Madam Speaker, the author of this resolution is known for his opposition to the use of American military force, and those who agree with him on foreign policy may well vote for this resolution. In contrast, I have voted for every authorization to use military force that has come before this Congress in the last 15 years, and I would support the authorization to use force in Libya if it had the proper conditions and limits.

This resolution would not actually result in the immediate withdrawal; instead, it would force the President to come to this Congress and seek authorization pursuant to law--and would get that authorization, I believe, with the appropriate limits and conditions. That would be an improvement to our foreign policy. More importantly, it would mean we're following the Constitution. The War Powers Act is the law of the land and it requires congressional authorization for military actions that take more than 60 days.

We long for democracy and the rule of law in Libya, but not at the expense of democracy and the rule of law in the United States. If we don't require compliance with the War Powers Act, who will? And if the War Powers Act becomes a dead letter, who will constrain some future President with imperial ambitions?

If your constituents insist that you stand up for the rule of law, don't go back to them next week saying you voted for the Boehner resolution. That Boehner resolution does not mention--let alone enforce--the War Powers Act.

The Boehner resolution just grudgingly acquiesces to an imperial vision of the Presidency. The Kucinich resolution enforces the War Powers Act and starts us on the War Powers Act process.

We owe it to our fighting men and women that when they risk their lives, they do so pursuant to our laws and our Constitution. And when they risk their lives for an extended period of time, they do so not because of the decision of one individual but, rather, because of the decision of the representatives of all of the American people.

We will soon vote on an amendment which I offered last night. It simply says that none of the funds in this appropriations bill can be used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution, which is the law of the land, Public Law 93-148. The law of the land states that the President can deploy troops but then must seek congressional authorization and must withdraw within 60 days if he doesn't get it.

Why do we need to add to this bill a provision that says the President can't spend money in violation of existing law? Because the President has asserted that resolutions of the United Nations or discussions with Members of Congress substitute for congressional authorization.

Why are we voting on this now? It has been ruled by the parliamentarian to be germane. We are voting now because Congress should take a stand before we take our 1-week break.

Even if you agree with everything that is happening in Libya, and we all long for democracy and the rule of law in Libya, this is a vote about democracy and the rule of law in the United States. This is our chance to simply

say the President, even the President, must follow law.

Please join with me, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. McGovern in supporting the Sherman amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Sherman

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Sherman

Amendment No. 41: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

limitation on use of funds to introduce united states armed forces into

hostilities or other similar circumstances

Sec. 7xx. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds made

available to carry out this Act may be used to introduce

United States Armed Forces--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent

involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the

circumstances,

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign

nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments

which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or

training of such forces, or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States

Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign

nation,

for a period longer than 60 days from the date a report is

required to be submitted under section 4 of the War Powers

Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543), unless Congress has declared war

or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of the

Armed Forces, has extended by law such 60-day period, or is

physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon

the United States, as specified under section 5 of the War

Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544).

(b) Extension.--Such 60-day period shall be extended for

not more than an additional 30 days if the President

determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that

unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of

United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such

Armed Forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal

of the Armed Forces.

Offered By: Mr. Sherman

Amendment No. 73: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

I have an amendment at the desk.

I had the Clerk read the whole amendment because it's just one sentence, and it's very simple. It says none of the money in this act can be used deliberately by the President to violate the law-- in particular, the war powers resolution often referred to as the War Powers Act, which is found in title 50 of the United States Code.

Why is this amendment necessary? Because so many administrations have embraced the idea of an imperial Presidency, have embraced the idea that a

United States President can send our forces into battle for an unlimited duration, unlimited in scope, and for whatever purposes the executive branch finds worthy.

The War Powers Act is the law of this land, and it says that a President may indeed commit our forces but must seek congressional authorization and must withdraw in 60 days if that authorization is not provided by the vote of both Houses of Congress.

But this President, like some others, believes that he doesn't have to follow the law. And in fact in this case in Libya, we and our allies were not attacked but rather a very important purpose--or thought to be important by the President--presented itself and so he committed our forces.

Now, the respect that the executive branch has for Congress has called upon them to hide their contempt for the law. And so they've implied without really stating it that there are substitutes for a congressional authorization. They've implied that resolutions by the United Nations, the Arab League, or NATO is a substitute for congressional action. And they've implied that consulting with congressional leaders, a lunch with leadership, is a substitute for an affirmative vote on the floors of both Houses.

It is time for us to stand up and say, No, Mr. President, you actually have to follow the law.

Now, why am I amending this bill? Obviously, this amendment is even more apropos to the Defense appropriations bill, but we'll be dealing with that many weeks from now. And the President has been in violation of the War Powers Act for several weeks now. And so we should try to act now.

But in addition, this amendment ought to be put on every appropriations bill that we pass this year. Otherwise, we invite a President who sees this amendment only on the Defense appropriations bill to try to find creative ways to transfer money from the Coast Guard account to the Navy or transfer a ship from the Navy to the Coast Guard to the Navy, one way or the other. We should not invite an unproductive loophole hunt. We should have the same restriction on every appropriations bill.

Now, if we can pass this amendment by a significant vote, the President will, I hope, request an authorization for the action he wants to take in Libya. And he will have to accept an authorization that I hope will be limited in time and scope. Perhaps it will be limited to air forces and not ground forces. Perhaps it will require renewal every 6 months rather than being permanent. There may be conditions such as why are we funding this out of taxpayer money and not the $33 billion of Qadhafi money that he was stupid enough to invest in the United States in ways that we could find out about and freeze.

And why has the transitional government in Benghazi refused to disassociate itself from the al Qaeda fighters and the Libyan Islamic fighting group fighters in their midst? Why will they not remove from their government those who support those who have American blood on their hands from Iraq and Afghanistan?

This is not just an issue of an aggrandizing President. It is also an issue of dereliction in Congress because, yes, we would like to avoid tough votes, particularly those that divide our constituents and even the constituents that we have from within our own party. But this is our constitutional duty. The War Powers Resolution is the law of the land. Whatever your views are on our activities in Libya, you ought to support this resolution.

I for one could support an authorization to use force that was carefully tailored and severely limited.

This amendment vote is not about democracy and the rule of law in Libya. We all long to see democracy and the rule of law in Libya. This vote is about democracy and the rule of law in the United States.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Sherman

Amendment No. 41: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

limitation on use of funds to introduce united states armed forces into

hostilities or other similar circumstances

Sec. 7xx. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds made

available to carry out this Act may be used to introduce

United States Armed Forces--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent

involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the

circumstances,

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign

nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments

which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or

training of such forces, or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States

Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign

nation,

for a period longer than 60 days from the date a report is

required to be submitted under section 4 of the War Powers

Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543), unless Congress has declared war

or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of the

Armed Forces, has extended by law such 60-day period, or is

physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon

the United States, as specified under section 5 of the War

Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544).

(b) Extension.--Such 60-day period shall be extended for

not more than an additional 30 days if the President

determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that

unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of

United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such

Armed Forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal

of the Armed Forces.

Offered By: Mr. Sherman

Amendment No. 73: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address three aspects of the conflict in Libya. The first of these is I think the most important. Our efforts to bring freedom and democracy to Libya should not be the occasion to undermine democracy and the rule of law here in the United States. Now there is considerable constitutional argument about the powers of the President. There are those who say he cannot take any military action without first an action by Congress. But in 1802, President Jefferson sent American naval and marine forces, in the words of the song, to the shores of Tripoli, and the founding generation of this country thought that that was consistent with Presidential power. So those who think that the President has no power to ever engage, I think must look at our history, as well as the text of our Constitution.

At the same time, there are those who say the President can do anything without congressional approval, and I think those folks go way too far. The answer is the War Powers Act, the law of the land, and we need to make sure that it is followed.

Now that law not only requires various reports and consultation, it says that if hostilities are to continue for more than 60 days, that Congress must pass in both Houses a resolution authorizing such activity, and that if after 60 days Congress has not passed such resolution, then the President has 30 days to withdraw. This is the law of the land.

And yet last week in both private session and in public hearings, high ranking members of the State Department declared by their vagueness that they might not follow the War Powers Act. That is why it is critical that we as a Nation demand that even those who are sworn to uphold the law, follow the law themselves, and that we in Congress add to any spending bill a provision that says no funds shall be spent for the purpose of violating section 5 of the War Powers Act which some also refer to as the War Powers Resolution.

Second, who pays for all of this? The cost is far greater than the $500 million to $600 million being estimated by the Defense Department. I am a CPA. They are using the marginal cost approach, which is widely discredited. Any full costing will show what the American people fully understand, and that is that this is costing us billions of dollars every week. Now, we have seized $30 billion of Libyan assets, assets of Qadhafi that were invested here in the United States. Those assets should be used first before we use money collected from American taxpayers.

Libya produces more oil per capita than any nation you can find on a map without a magnifying glass; more oil per capita, per person, than even Saudi Arabia. I realize Libya will need to be rebuilt, but its oil revenues will return and provide for that. And we should quietly insist that the Benghazi council pass a resolution authorizing the United States to use those seized Libyan assets to fund our military efforts.

But there is something even more that we should insist on from those who are running eastern Libya, and that is that they use their best efforts, and I realize they are disorganized, to cut off their contact with and even seek to extradite those in their midst who have American blood on their hands. There is, for example, Mr. al-Hasadi who fought us in Afghanistan and Pakistan who brags that he dispatched soldiers to kill America's finest in Iraq, and who is now one of the rebel commanders. We should insist that such individuals be turned over to the United States, and if they can't find them, that they at least disassociate themselves.

Now, the administration responds by saying that Qadhafi has American blood on his hands. And I am sure that Qadhafi has, after Pan Am 103, more American blood on his hands than do any collection of rebel leaders. But is this the standard by which we judge those that we ask our men and women to die for, to put themselves in harm's way for, to kill for?

I do not think that it makes sense to say that the rebels should be aided as long as they have less American blood on their hands than does Mr. Qadhafi.

The test of whether these rebels will be allies and friends of America, or the opposite, is whether they turn over or use their best efforts to turn over al-Hasadi to the United States.

I represent both airports in question. This is a principled amendment that deals with all airports that had curfews in effect in 1990.

To say that Burbank should appeal, having spent $9 million on a dead- end rigged process, is not a sufficient answer. And to say that Van Nuys should then go spend $9 million on a process that's obviously rigged is not an answer.

The answer is to adopt this amendment that doesn't cost the Federal Government a penny and simply allows the L.A. area to do what every stakeholder in the area wants to do. The harsh hand of the Federal Government should not prevent local control in this area.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I speak today in solemn remembrance of a dark chapter in modern history. This past weekend marked the 23rd anniversary of the massacre of Armenian civilians in Azerbaijan. On the evening of February 27, 1988, a three-day rampage against Armenian civilians living in Sumgait, in Soviet Azerbaijan, began.

Armenian civilians were maimed, raped, beaten, and burned alive at the hands of rioters. International media outlets reported that Armenians were ``hunted'' down and killed in their homes.

The calls for help for those innocent Armenians were ignored by the local police, and the victims' fate was left to those who ruthlessly and senselessly ended their lives.

The official figure from Soviet authorities, who had prohibited journalists from entering the area, was just over 30 people dead and over 200 injured. However, many believe that in fact hundreds were murdered.

Sadly, Sumgait was not the end to the tragedies. Anti-Armenian pogroms followed in Kirovabad on November 21, 1988 and in Baku on January 13, 1990. During the Nagorno-Karabakh War of 1988 to 1994, Armenian civilian population centers were indiscriminately attacked.

If we hope to stop future massacres, and conflicts, we need to acknowledge those horrific acts of the past, make sure they do not happen again, and make sure that we do not have renewed war between Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. That is why I would like to commemorate the victims of the Sumgait massacre.

Mr. Chair, Congressman Frank and Congressman Holt offered amendments reducing funding for the Internal Revenue Service, and increasing funding for the SEC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, respectively.

I do not support a reduction in the budget of the Internal Revenue Service, nor do I support the rather modest cut to the General Services Administration included in the Frank Amendment

I believe that if the House adopts the Frank and Holt Amendments that the Senate will provide the funds to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau indicated in those amendments, and will also restore the funds to the IRS and the GSA. Accordingly, I did not vote for these amendments as if they were the last word that Congress would utter regarding the funding of the SEC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the IRS, and the GSA. Rather, I believe that in the Senate, and in the Conference committee, the support registered for the Frank and Holt Amendments will bolster the claim of those trying to provide adequate funding for the SEC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but will not undercut those of us seeking adequate funding for the IRS and GSA.

My support for IRS funding does not mean that I do not think that there needs to be significant reform of the IRS, its operations, and

in some hopefully rare cases, the manner in which it treats tax payers.

Mr. Speaker, it is my practice to vote present on a legislative proposal when I agree with the purposes and sentiment behind the proposal, but I believe that the particular legislative proposal is not drafted in a way which will achieve its objective or in a way that is effective and practicable, or where I believe that the language will have unintended consequences. I voted present on the motion to recommit which came before the House today. I strongly believe that we should take all reasonable steps to encourage companies to provide employment in the U.S. and to discourage offshoring and outsourcing.

We come together today as a Nation to mourn those who died in Arizona and to pray for the full recovery of those still lying in hospital beds in Tucson.

Gabby Giffords has captured the love and admiration of this entire country as America has come to know her through news reports, just as we have come to know her over the last 4 years as the most delightful and engaging Member of this House, and as a woman who brought intelligence and

determination to the service of this country.

The last time I had a chance to spend time with Gabby was just 6 days ago. We were here on the House floor. As it happens, we sat next to each other as we waited our turn to be assigned a portion of the Constitution to be read. We had a chance to listen to each passage, to speak briefly about some of the salient provisions. And as they got down the line to where we were sitting, it became apparent that Gabby would be called upon to read the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that I would be called upon to read the considerably less august Third Amendment.

For just a selfish instant, I wondered why luck couldn't have been just a little different. If we had been sitting just one seat over, then I could have stood here and talked about freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But providence had determined otherwise, had determined that Gabby Giffords should stand on this floor and have the honor of reading the First Amendment, an amendment that is best known for its earlier clauses but which ends with the words that enshrine the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The day after she read those words at this podium, she flew home to Arizona so she could stand in front of a Safeway, intending to meet people peaceably assembled, and listen to people petition for a redress of their grievances.

I was relieved yesterday when doctors said that they were confident that the assassin had not taken Gabby's life. And I am confident that that assassin did not take from our people the right to peaceably assemble and to tell their elected representatives their ideas and, yes, their grievances.

I look forward to 2 years from now and 2 years after that and 2 years after that, to sitting here on this floor with Gabby and waiting until she is called upon to read the First Amendment.